Comments on: Crazy for God: The Apostasy of Frank Schaeffer

By: OMGF

OMGF — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 22:22:39 +0000

Mr. Bird,

There is a bigger principle at play here. You can take something that is good and misuse it. There is a lot to be said for the teachings of Jesus. The problem is that many of those who claim to follow him don't live by his teachings, or worse live contrary to his teachings and then try to impose their way on everyone. People are then turned off, on the basis of these shenanigans

See Ebon's post on Jesus's teachings for one. Two, you are making the mistake of thinking that religion is inherently good, therefore anything done that is seen as not good must be a misapplication of religion. This is, however, begging the question.

Belief systems are there to be internalised and lived out, not imposed on otheres.

And the only way to do that would be to have a government that is truly neutral by staying out of it completely. Of course, you may think that that is pushing atheism?

Atheism is a faith. Its main tenet is that there is no God.

No, atheism is simply the realization that no theist has ever provided sufficient (read any) evidence for the fanciful notion of there being a god or multiple gods.

They are quite separate from the agnostic who takes the position that he is not sure

No, the agnostic says that we can not know for sure either way.

By: Nes

Nes — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:59:00 +0000

Damien, I hate to disagree with you. Atheism is a faith. Its main tenet is that there is no God.

Assuming that you don't believe in them, then I suppose that you take it entirely on faith that there are no leprechauns?

By: Mrnaglfar

Mrnaglfar — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 15:40:34 +0000

Ken,

Atheism is a faith. Its main tenet is that there is no God.

If that is it's main tenet, what are it's other tenets?

Also, what part of that statement does not lay on evidence (i.e. what reason should an atheist have to believe in god)?

By: Ken Bird

Ken Bird — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 06:12:39 +0000

Whether they were True Scotsmen or not, as far as Marxism goes, is debatable. The same argument has to be applied to those to whom Franky is reacting to. Their actions have been well documented in this column. There is no denying that there have been some dreadful things done by people over the millenia "in God's name". The question is whether their actions truthfully represented the position they claimed to follow.

Damien, I hate to disagree with you. Atheism is a faith. Its main tenet is that there is no God. Quite a dogmatic faith statement. The ones I have met were even evangelistic in their attempts to propagate their faith.

They are quite separate from the agnostic who takes the position that he is not sure

By: Ebonmuse

Ebonmuse — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:37:50 +0000

Not in this thread we won't. ;)

By: DamienSansBlog

DamienSansBlog — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 02:10:31 +0000

Oh, all right, I'll say it first:

ATHEISM IS NOT A FAITH.

To be fair, however, it is a mindset or worldview -- a "meme", if you like -- and one of the foundational "memes" comprising Marxism, which was the social structure (or "memeplex") that Stalin and Pol Pot...claimed for their own. Whether they were True Scotsmen or not, as far as Marxism goes, is debatable.

And I'm sure we'll be debating it.

By: Ken Bird

Ken Bird — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 23:00:08 +0000

There is a bigger principle at play here. You can take something that is good and misuse it. There is a lot to be said for the teachings of Jesus. The problem is that many of those who claim to follow him don't live by his teachings, or worse live contrary to his teachings and then try to impose their way on everyone. People are then turned off, on the basis of these shenanigans
History teaches us that whenever religion and politics have got into bed together the results have been a disaster. It doesn't matter what the religion is. The result is intolerance and repression.
In the Middle Ages it was the "Christian" church and we call it the dark ages. But lest the atheists become too cocky, let me remind them of what happened in the Soviet Union when the religion of atheism and the state got together. Quite a repressive regime. Likewise Pol Pot in Cambodia is another sorry story for that faith.
Belief systems are there to be internalised and lived out, not imposed on otheres. If we all do that it will soon be obvious which ones work and which ones don't.

By: Brock

Brock — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:32:33 +0000

Thanks for the review, Adam. I read the first few chapters last night at the bookstore, bought the book, and am about halfway through it. I was a fan of the late Francis Schaeffer when I was a Christian, and this book reminds me why that was, also why I'm glad to be out of it. One stylistic note: for a professional writer, Mr Schaeffer certainly has a poor grasp of English grammar, especially how pronouns change in the objective case. Probably one of the benefits of homeschooling!

By: DamienSansBlog

DamienSansBlog — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:14:05 +0000

Off topic I know but followed Kelly Gorsky's link from his comment above and saw this comment by Theistscientist...

I remember this. Find the story here: http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/01/the-portable-atheist.html

By: lpetrich

lpetrich — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:00:10 +0000

Even if the fundie theocrats took over, they could still manufacture crises to their heart's content, like the sins of their followers or the machinations of enemies abroad.

Joseph Stalin had done that, ordering massive purges of the Party and the military; he claimed that enemies of the people were everywhere, plotting to kill Soviet leaders, sabotage the economy, and sell out the Soviet Union. It's like he looked under his bed each night to see if there were any counterrevolutionaries there.

And given what Stalin had done to many of the Old Bolshevik leaders, making them confess to evil crimes that they had never committed, I can imagine the successors of the first fundie theocrats doing that to them.